Thursday, 5/29/97 Criminalization of marijuana use out of step
with state, people’s rights DRUGS: Government "drug war" focuses on
partisanship, imposes too severe penalties for offenders
By Colin Morris Last November, the voters of California
succeeded in passing a proposition to legalize the medicinal use of
marijuana as prescribed by doctors. The passing of Proposition 215
seemed to symbolize a promising trend toward knowledge of the
substance. However, after reading an article by Eric Schlosser in
the April issue of Atlantic Monthly, I have been shocked with the
reality of what is occurring elsewhere. Many of us are aware of the
idiocy of our legal system treating marijuana offenders worse than
violent criminals. I doubt, however, that many Americans are truly
conscious of how some peoples’ lives have been shattered because of
current practices in the so-called "drug war." Now, about 15 years
since its beginning, the "war on drugs" has become a war on
personal freedom and toes the line of authoritarianism. On the
brink of the 21st century, this is not a good sign for preserving
our future, nor that of democracy. In 1989, a small business owner
and Vietnam veteran, Douglas Lamar Gray, who had only petty crimes
on his record was sentenced to life in prison without parole after
buying one pound of weed for himself and friends. He made the
purchase from a convicted felon working as an informant for a local
Alabama task force. Gray’s wife, left with a 2-year-old son and no
source of income, unsuccessfully attempted suicide. The informant
was paid $100. Life sentences for non-violent marijuana offenses
exist in 15 states . In Montana, the sentence can be imposed for
growing a single plant or selling a single joint. But such martial
law is not nearly as horrific as that on the federal level. Stiff
federal policies against drugs arose in 1982 under President
Reagan. The largest leap forward came in 1986 with the Anti-Drug
Abuse Act which established mandatory minimum sentences in drug
offense cases and transferred the power to impose such sentences
from judges to prosecutors. Legislation for the bill was hastily
pushed through Congress, inspired by the recent passing of a
standout basketball player and first-round draft pick of the Boston
Celtics. Len Bias died on June 17, 1986 due to heart failure caused
by crack cocaine. In drafting the bill, the prime factor for
necessitating a mandatory minimum sentence was the quantity of
drugs involved in the crime. As Eric Sterling, then assistant
counsel for the House Subcommittee of Crime, states, "Numbers were
being picked out of thin air." Less than three months after being
drafted, the bill was signed by President Reagan. One result of
this legislation was the conviction of Donald Clark, a watermelon
farmer in Florida found guilty of growing marijuana. He was
sentenced to probation by the state court, then re-tried five years
later under federal law and sentenced to life in prison. In
addition to severe incarceration penalties, the government may also
seize all possessions without due process. In 1994, $1.5 billion
worth of assets were seized during routine searches under the guise
of "lawful forfeiture." (In 80 percent of those cases, the owners
were never even charged with a crime.) If these facts shock you,
the next ones will make you sick. The allure for seizing property
is that the assets are divided among the various law enforcement
agencies involved who can then sell those assets for profit.
Thirty-one drug agents raided the property of Donald Scott in
Malibu, Calif. after a tip that marijuana was being cultivated
there. None was found but Scott was accidentally killed in the
raid. An investigation later found that an appraisal of his $5
million property had been obtained five weeks prior. In order to
lessen their penalty, many defendants will aid in the prosecution
of other offenders. (They’re sometimes actually rewarded with
portions up to 25 percent of seized assets.) The brunt of
punishment then trickles down to the least guilty party with no
information to sell. For those lacking valuable information there
is a black market where drug leads can secretly be bought. A
prominent defense attorney from Kansas, Tom Dawson, has found that
professional "vendors" will charge fees of up to $250,000. Other
issues include the over-crowding of prisons and the failure to stem
the tide of drug use. As to state prisons, Pennsylvania’s prison
population has doubled over the past decade and the system now
operates at 54 percent above capacity. If incarceration rates
continue at the same pace, a new prison will have to be opened
every 90 days. As far as the effectiveness of drug laws, teenage
use of marijuana has roughly doubled since 1992. And its
availability, according to teens, has hardly diminished either.
From 1982, when Reagan declared his war on drugs, to 1994, the
number of teenagers reporting that they could easily obtain
marijuana decreased from 88.5 to 85.5 percent – just 3 percent in
12 years. What this last issue seems to reflect is that our country
is more concerned with enforcing punishment than with finding a
remedy to widespread drug use and related crime. I can understand
the naive perception of many that the more "taboo" drugs are
portrayed, better is the chance of winning the "war on drugs." The
U.S. government, however, with greater access to research and
statistical information than any other organized body, cannot
justify its actions with such naivete. Essentially, the only
explanation for existing policies is the advancement of partisan
interests. Reagan’s anti-drug campaign was initiated in response to
mounting pressure from conservative parents’ groups. Tip O’Neill’s
avid support behind the Anti-Drug Abuse Act was a Democratic
counter to this effort. And the Clinton administration’s escalated
law enforcement is an attempt to discredit its image – painted by
Republicans – as being soft on drugs. (Ironically, Democrats could
combat the "tax and spend" perception by reducing the $2.4 billion
spent annually processing marijuana arrests.) These tactics, while
incapable of eliciting progress, appear as valiant efforts to
constituents. Reverting back to Proposition 215 and its potential
for success, we, as Californians, need to recognize the main
principle involved – states’ rights. I never thought the issues of
Federalism and anti-Federalism from the 18th century would be at
all prominent in the modern era, but it seems as if they now are.
There may be no threat of disunion but there is a very real threat
of the federal government abusing the rights of those citizens
whose respective states have sought to protect. When people
suffering from AIDS, cancer or multiple sclerosis are imprisoned
for using marijuana as a treatment, who has committed the
injustice? Pertaining to marijuana laws as a whole it is imperative
that we, as Americans, demand a more effective and compassionate
approach to the drug problem. One method proposed by Senator Phil
Gramm involved the denial of welfare benefits to drug offenders.
Modified and later passed, this proposal is good because it
punishes by taking away privileges, which laws like the Anti-Drug
Abuse Act do not. (FREEDOM is not a privilege; It is an inalienable
right!) I see no choice but for further solutions to embrace the
decriminalization of marijuana. I shall not debate the ethics of
casual use of the drug. I will merely state that it has never been
linked as the sole cause of a single death and no long-term
detrimental effects beyond depression have ever been proved.
Furthermore, no proof has been found that law enforcement
discourages use. (For evidence of the contrary one need only take
the examples of the Netherlands and Sweden.) The facilitating of
phenomenal business profits among dealers and state and federal
organizations, pooled with deprivation of citizens’ constitutional
rights, is the evil which must be targeted and struck down. This is
only made possible when marijuana is legalized. Previous Daily
Bruin Stories: Battle over legal prescription of medical marijuana
still raging, Jan 21, 1997